Tag: Lord Berkeley

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-01-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether current railway legislation permits a managing director of a railway undertaking to hold a senior management position on the infrastructure management company on which that railway undertaking operates.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Current railway legislation does not prohibit an arrangement of this sort. However, railway legislation contains safeguards designed to prevent conflicts of interests arising in respect of infrastructure management and the management of railway undertakings, particularly as regards the allocation of track access rights and the determination of charges. It would be for the infrastructure manager to satisfy themselves that such an arrangement complies with all relevant legislation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the completion date, and (2) the impact on electricity sale prices, of (a) the Swansea Lagoon project, and (b) the Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

EDF have said that they expect Hinkley Point C to start generating electricity in 2025. Hinkley Point C is a good deal for everyone including consumers – Hinkley would provide reliable energy at an affordable cost, powering nearly six million homes for around 60 years and creating more than 25,000 jobs.

The negotiations regarding a Contract for Difference for the proposed Swansea Bay lagoon remain ongoing.

On 10 February, the Government announced an independent review to consider alternatives approaches to financing tidal lagoons, providing an evidence base to ensuring decisions are taken in the best interest of bill-payers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government for which projects and for what reasons the Highways Agency has requested an additional £140 million funding.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

£140m was allocated to Highways England to complete schemes which had not been included in the five year road programme detailed in the Road Investment Strategy.

The funding was used to complete the ‘pinch point’ programme, Dart Charge implementation, as well as the completion of various small improvement schemes.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-05-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, for each of the following European Union implementing acts, when those acts were due to be transposed into UK law; when they intend to have transposed each; why they have not yet done so; and what action the European Commission has taken against the UK government for any delay: (1) Implementing Regulation (EU) 909/2015 regarding charging and direct cost; (2) Implementing Regulation (EU) 545/2016 regarding framework agreements; (3) Implementing Regulation (EU) 171/2015 regarding licensing; (4) Implementing Regulation (EU) 10/2015 regarding applicants; (5) Implementing Regulation (EU) 869/2014 regarding the principal purpose and economic equilibrium test; (6) Implementing Regulation (EU) 429/2015 regarding noise differentiated track access charges; and (7) Implementing Regulation (EU) 1100/2015 regarding rail market monitoring.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

These implementing Regulations are directly applicable and do not require transposition into UK law. Their legal effect in the UK derives from the European Committee Act 1972.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-10-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the planned expansion of Luton Airport from 10 million to 18 million passengers a year, they intend to include in the specification for the new Midland Main Line longer-distance passenger service a requirement that four trains per hour per direction should call at Luton Parkway in order to increase the percentage of air passengers arriving by rail.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The next East Midlands franchise is due to start in July 2018 and we are currently undertaking a process of information gathering to develop the high-level view of the franchise specification. We are due to begin a public consultation later this year to inform the specification. Until the views submitted through the public consultation are understood and further analysis is conducted on the options for the franchise, a firm decision cannot be taken at this stage. I would encourage the noble Lord to make his views known through the formal public consultation process when it opens.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-01-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how their work on the governance part of the European Fourth railway package will facilitate UK train operating companies being able to tender for and be awarded rail franchises in a fair and transparent manner.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The government continues to work on the market pillar of the EU Fourth Railway Package, consisting of the proposal to amend Directive 2012/34/EU, the “Governance proposal” and the proposal to amend Regulation EC/1370/2007, the “Public Service Obligations proposal”.

The government was able to support a General Approach on the pillar at the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council on 8^th October 2015. The General Approach text of the Governance proposal includes additional, proportionate provisions to ensure fair and non‑discriminatory treatment of all train operating companies, including safeguards for operators of franchises. Rules on the competitive tendering of franchises are set out in the Public Service Obligations proposal.

The government continues to work with the Netherlands Presidency of the Council of the EU in their ongoing negotiations of the Package with the European Parliament.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they are proposing to discontinue the use of the Westbury East Loop Junction and Hawkeridge Junction line for passenger services, and whether such a change will prevent that line from being used for diversion routes for passenger services in future.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The proposal is to withdraw one regular passenger train service in one direction only Monday to Friday over this short curve on the grounds of low usage and for the service instead to serve the nearby important station of Westbury. The service was designated as experimental in 2011.

The withdrawal of the experimental status for the passenger service in question does not affect the line itself, which will continue to remain open for diverted passenger trains and freight.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the HS2 project intends to use secondary aggregates, and if so, in which types of concrete required for Phase 1 of that project.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

As part of our overall sustainability policy for HS2, we plan to use both secondary and re-cycled aggregates in structures which are designed with concrete. Their use, along with the types of concrete to be used, will be dependent on the specific design characteristics of individual HS2 structures and will be subject to the detailed design process in due course. The design process will also take into account other important sustainable factors such as material availability and logistics.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-06-06.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many train paths an hour will be freed up on the West Coast Main Line when HS2 Phase 1 is operational according to Network Rail’s West Coast Main Line Capacity Plus study, and when that study will be published.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

HS2 Phase 1 will add significant additional capacity to the London to West Midlands rail corridor, and this provides an opportunity for the industry to evaluate how best to make use of the released capacity on the southern section of the West Coast Main Line. Network Rail continues to develop the evidence base to support the Capacity Plus study. Train operating companies and freight operating companies, passenger transport executives and local authorities and High Speed 2 Ltd are supporting Network Rail in its ongoing work. Network Rail will use this work to inform the Initial Industry Advice for Control Period 6 which is expected to be published by the end of 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in respect of the proposed Garden Bridge, whether the Department for Transport met each of the criteria set by the Treasury before funding was committed; if not, what action was taken to override the Treasury criteria; and what changes to procedures are in place to avoid any non-compliance with Treasury criteria.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Government funding for the Garden Bridge project was initially announced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 2013 Autumn Statement. In a subsequent letter to the then Secretary of State for Transport, the Chancellor said that this funding had been committed on the basis that:

• the Mayor of London would match it from Transport for London’s resources;
• a satisfactory business case would be produced, demonstrating that the project provided value for money;
• Transport for London would fund the Bridge’s ongoing maintenance; and
• the Mayor would cover cost overruns or shortfalls in funding.

The first criterion was met in full in advance of funding being transferred to Transport for London.

In respect of the second criterion, a business case for the project was produced by Transport for London and assessed by the Department before any funding was transferred. The Department’s analysis suggested that the project had a wide range of possible benefit to cost ratios, and that whilst there were risk factors associated with such a unique project, it had a reasonable chance of delivering value for money. The funding was therefore made available with a number of conditions attached to it, including a cap of £8.25 million on the amount that could be spent before the start of construction. That particular condition was revised, with part of the funding now able to be used to underwrite the cancellation costs that would arise were the project to be cancelled. This followed a Ministerial direction by the previous Secretary of State for Transport in May 2016.

In respect of the third criterion, funding of the ongoing maintenance costs will be a matter for the Garden Bridge Trust, but should the Trust be unable to cover these costs, the previous Mayor issued a Mayoral direction in June 2015 which approved the provision of guarantees by the Greater London Authority in relation to the Garden Bridge, subject to suitable terms and arrangements being agreed.

In terms of the fourth criterion, the Government has made clear that there will be no more public funding for the project beyond what has already been committed.

I receive regular progress reports from the chairman of the Garden Bridge Trust, and Department for Transport officials are in regular contact with their opposite numbers in Transport for London and the Garden Bridge Trust to discuss these and other matters. I do not consider any changes are necessary to these procedures.